Legal Ethics Chapter III – The Lawyer and the Courts

Canon 12- A Lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
efficient administration of Justice…
Rule 12.02- A lawyer shall not file multiple action arising from the same cause.
- Forum Shopping – omission to disclose pendency of appeal or prior dismissal of his
case by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
- Forrum shopping exists when a result of an adverse opinion in one forum:
E.g:
- a party seeks favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or
- when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause,
on the gamble that one or the other would make a favorable disposition (Benguet
Electric Corp vs Flores, 287 SCRA 449, March 12, 1998). Wherein an administrative
complaint was filed against Atty. Ernesto Flores by Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc
(BENECO) in grounds of violating Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Thus, the IBP held a resolution finding the respondent guilty of violating
the said aforementioned Canons and recommending his suspension from the practice of
law for a period of six months. “As stated that the profession of law exacts the highest
standards from its members and brooks no violation of its code of conduct. Accordingly,
a lawyer who trifles with Judicial Processes, engages in forum shopping and blatanly
lies in his pleadings must be sanctioned.”
- The most important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the
VEXATION caused the courts and party-litigants by a party who asks different courts to
rule on the same related causes, asking the same relief.
-Forum shopping constitutes DIRECT CONTEMPT of court and may subject the offending
lawyer to disciplinary action.

Rule 12.03- A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.
An example of this is in the of A.C No. 7922 Oct 1, 2013 Mary Ann T. Mattus, Complainant vs Atty. Albert
T Villaseca, Respondent.
Background Facts

The complainant, German Bernardo D. Mattus and Dexter Aligan were the accused in Criminal
Case No. 10309-02 – a case for estafa thru falsification of public document filed in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite. The complainant and her husband, German, engaged
the services of Atty. Villaseca to represent them in the proceedings. The complainant maintained
that she and German were convicted due to Atty. Villaseca’s gross and inexcusable negligence in
performing his duties as their counsel. In her complaint-affidavit,1 the complainant alleged,
among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often absent during court hearings but still collected
appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the postponement of trial when he was present; (3) failed
to ask the RTC to direct a National Bureau of Investigation expert to examine the signatures of
the spouses Leslie and Zuraida Porter2 in the special power of attorney (SPA); (4) failed to file a
demurrer to evidence despite having been granted sufficient time by the RTC to submit one; (5)
failed to present evidence on behalf of the defense, and only filed a memorandum; (6) did not
inform her and German of the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and the
promulgation of judgment; and (7) erroneously indicated the wrong case number in the notice
of appeal. According to the complainant, Atty. Villaseca’s negligence in handling the case resulted
in her own and her husband’s conviction

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Villaseca’s failure to submit a demurrer to evidence
constitutes inexcusable negligence; it showed his lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his
clients’ cause. Furthermore, Atty. Villaseca’s failure to present any testimonial, object or
documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lack of diligence in performing his duties as an
officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his clients. Considering that
the liberty and livelihood of his clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted efforts
to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer has
complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present
every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his client’s cause.

-Caveat: Asking for extension of time must be in good faith.